Since Matthew has locked the topic on the Creed and stated that all posters must consent to the Creed with the Filioque I will no longer be posting on Cath Info as I cannot consent to the Creed with the Filioque as it is heresy.

Thank you for tolerating me for as long as you did Matthew.  My best to you and your family.

We will miss you.

Speak for yourself. I won't experience any painful sense of separation upon the departure of a schismatic troll.

saintalice,

I never debated a protestant, apostate or heretic that did not have an attachment to a sin they did not want to give up. Have you been married more than once? Or are you married to someone married more than once? (rhetorical question)

I was at the train station in Philadelphia about 20 yrs. ago saying Grace with my eight children at McDonalds. At the end of the prayer, an Orthodox monk sitting behind me back to back tapped me on the shoulder and said: "Are you Orthodox? You just said Grace the same way we do at the monastery." I replied: "No, I'm a traditional Catholic". The monk pulled his chair close to mine and ended in a two hour debate on three of his heresies. He said he never encountered a Catholic that knew the faith (poor soul). He gave in on every dogma debated. At the end he said to me: "Keep your faith and teach it to your children", I replied: "What about you?" He shrugged his shoulders and silently and slowly walked away. I got a steep parking ticket but it was a small price to pay to get him to examine his conscience.

Are you honest or are you seeking yourself?  That is a question you have to ask yourself. You will either "love yourself to contempt of God or love God to contempt of self", which will it be? The Truth is out there for you to find. I will pray for your conversion.

The creed did change.  The filioque was not originally part of it. It changed under the authority of the Church, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Successor of St. Peter and the Catholic Bishops in communion with him.  The fact that it was not in the very first text of the Creed does not mean that it isn't dogma.  It is.

I never debated a protestant, apostate or heretic that did not have an attachment to a sin they did not want to give up.

THIS ^^^

And ex-Catholics are the worst.  When they're done ranting about the false "doctrines" of the Catholic Church and how they "saw the light" about religion of God vs. the religion of man, I simply tell them, "You're either divorced-remarried, don't want to go to Confession, or want to use birth control."  It's an almost 100% hit rate.

Quote from: tadeas

Quote from: Sigismund

The creed did change.  The filioque was not originally part of it. It changed under the authority of the Church, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Successor of St. Peter and the Catholic Bishops in communion with him.  The fact that it was not in the very first text of the Creed does not mean that it isn't dogma.  It is.

But St. Agatho declared nothing can be added to a dogma. How to explain it?

Adding something to a Creed is not the same thing as adding it to "dogma".  As theology develops, and as certain heretics start denying truths, things simply become explicit that had already been implicit.  Or things become more strongly professed in order to combat a new heresy.  Some of the early Church Councils which expound the basic Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the Church came about as a result of combating heretics.  They did not create new dogmas but simply became more explicit and more clear in their definition of truths that had always been believed.  So, for instance, it is not false to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ... unless you are saying that He proceeds ONLY from the Father.  Speaking part of the truth is not error.  But then some heretic comes along and starts denying procession from the Son also, so now you have to add this to the Creed.  When various heretics started denying the true humanity of Jesus, the Church added the genuflection at the "incarnatus est" to reaffirm this truth and fight the heresy.  Thus the Church often adds more explicit expressions of truth over time as heresies arise over time.

Ok, but it means we need theologians who explain us how we have to understand a dogma, and in this particular case, that St. Agatho's words cannot be taken literally and, therefore, the Church can add to what was once declared.

Quote from: Sigismund

The creed did change.  The filioque was not originally part of it. It changed under the authority of the Church, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Successor of St. Peter and the Catholic Bishops in communion with him.  The fact that it was not in the very first text of the Creed does not mean that it isn't dogma.  It is.

But St. Agatho declared nothing can be added to a dogma. How to explain it?

Nothing was added to the dogma.  The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father.  The original version of the Creed didn't say "...from the Father alone."  The Church grew in its understanding of the Dogma.  That is not unusual.  

Quote from: tadeas

Ok, but it means we need theologians who explain us how we have to understand a dogma, and in this particular case, that St. Agatho's words cannot be taken literally and, therefore, the Church can add to what was once declared.

Ladislaus answered you pretty clearly.

The Creed is not "a dogma." It is a profession of Faith in several dogmas.

Reciting the Nicene-Constantinopoliatan Creed as it was originally composed, minus the Filioque, is fine - many Eastern Catholic churches do this. But the dogma of the Filioque must still be believed, and so it was, by St. Athanasius, and most of the other Latin and Greek Fathers who interpreted St. John xx:xxii for what it was - an unambiguously clear procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.

Adding the Filioque was necessary in the Western Church, because Arianism persisted in the Latin West long after it had died out in the Greek East. It is merely explicitly stating a dogma in the Creed that was already expressed implicitly. It was done with the approval and permission of the Supreme Pontiff and that alone makes the addition licit, as the Pope is Supreme Legislator over the entire Church. The Filioque never became a point of contention until Caesaropapist schismatics like Photius and Michael Cerularius used it (and the Latin use of azymes and many other non-controversies) as an excuse to justify their schismatic actions.

Also well stated.  And I am a Byzantine.